John Smith

The 1.3 crop will be going away. All cameras going forward will be APS-C and full frame. The ISO performance of upcoming cameras from Canon will be industry leading. This is in part because of sensor technology advancements as well as DIGIC V.

I'm not familiar with the APS-H line, but I find this a little curious.

Switching to FF will make the owner's lenses a little short[er], while switching to APS-C will make them a little long[er]. A need to buy new lenses with a new body sounds like an opportunity to switch brand.

The 1.3 crop will be going away. All cameras going forward will be APS-C and full frame. The ISO performance of upcoming cameras from Canon will be industry leading. This is in part because of sensor technology advancements as well as DIGIC V.

I'm not familiar with the APS-H line, but I find this a little curious.

Switching to FF will make the owner's lenses a little short[er], while switching to APS-C will make them a little long[er]. A need to buy new lenses with a new body sounds like an opportunity to switch brand.

The difference is great enough to switch brands, not in my opinion. People move from 1.6 to 1.0 all the time and just add a new wide angle and they're good to go. Lenses that satisfy one function just plug another gap. You'll be buying a lot of the same lenses you already have. Besides, a 50mm going from 65mm back to 50 just means you take two steps forward. I don't see the issue being near as severe as the confusion from having three crop factors in one line. I'd much rather have a FF with crop options in-body. This should be standard, like choosing file quality. I'd also love to see selectable ratios with a custom function, so you could frame and shoot 2.35:1 images and see what they'll look like as if cropped in post-processing. These would be fun features to play with in the field. (Square and circular crops would be cool as well). If you don't like this stuff, don't use it.

* The f/1.2 has metal body with weather sealing, where the f/1.4 has plastic body with no weather sealing.

* The f/1.2 has 8 circular aperture blades, while the f/1.4 has 7 straight blades.

* The f/1.2 has an aspherical element, the f/1.4 has none.

You know the sad thing is that even the new nikon 50 f1.8 has an aspherical element. And its 200$ not 1600$...Canon screwed this when they released the new 50 f1.2, because its became the worst L prime in the lineup, its so weak that even the 1.4 can match it. So canon can't (and won't) upgrade the 1.4 until the 1.2 is not getting its refresh. And its not coming soon...

I'd much rather have a FF with crop options in-body. This should be standard, like choosing file quality.

Please forgive me if I am missing something obvious as I've never even considered this....but, other than file size on your CF card, how is this different from simply cropping a full frame image in post?

I'm not familiar with the APS-H line, but I find this a little curious.

Switching to FF will make the owner's lenses a little short[er], while switching to APS-C will make them a little long[er]. A need to buy new lenses with a new body sounds like an opportunity to switch brand.

If Canon doesn't want to fall behind Nikon in high ISO department (quite reasonable desire for a sports camera) they have no choice but go bigger (no smaller sensor can compete with bigger one in high iso), otherwise iso-sensitive (also IQ sensitive) people switch brand too? Also, there are many eagerly waiting their lenses to act as they were designed for. Counting pros&cons might not always be straightforward.

I'd much rather have a FF with crop options in-body. This should be standard, like choosing file quality.

Please forgive me if I am missing something obvious as I've never even considered this....but, other than file size on your CF card, how is this different from simply cropping a full frame image in post?

There are two main reasons for the APS-H format. One is that it's substantially cheaper to produce than FF (APS-H is the largest size that can be imaged in one shot onto the silicon wafer during production, FF sensors require multiple passes). The second is that the smaller sensor size allows a faster frame rate - dual Digic IVs could not achieve 10 fps from a FF sensor. But, if an in-camera crop is applied, a smaller portion of the sensor could be used, allowing a faster frame rate. So a FF camera with a fast shutter could achieve higher frame rates that way, e.g. Nikon's D3 is 9 fps in FX mode (but that's only 12 MP, so a lot less data to manage than Canon's current 21 MP FF), but edges up to 11 fps in DX mode (1.5x crop).

Apparently 5 versions of this lens exist. A few even have IS. It is slated for a 2011 announcement. The patent weâ€™ve seen says no IS.

Is it normal for manufacturers to produce 5 different, fully functional prototypes of different designs for a new lens? Surely in this age of computer design and modelling, lens manufacturers can just settle on one design and tweak it? Is anyone else a touch suspicious about this?

Apparently 5 versions of this lens exist. A few even have IS. It is slated for a 2011 announcement. The patent weâ€™ve seen says no IS.

Is it normal for manufacturers to produce 5 different, fully functional prototypes of different designs for a new lens? Surely in this age of computer design and modelling, lens manufacturers can just settle on one design and tweak it? Is anyone else a touch suspicious about this?

Apple does the same thing, though to obscure announcements. Guess what I spend my days doing besides waiting for Canon to release things?

I'd much rather have a FF with crop options in-body. This should be standard, like choosing file quality.

Please forgive me if I am missing something obvious as I've never even considered this....but, other than file size on your CF card, how is this different from simply cropping a full frame image in post?

.... But, if an in-camera crop is applied, a smaller portion of the sensor could be used, allowing a faster frame rate. So a FF camera with a fast shutter could achieve higher frame rates that way, e.g. Nikon's D3 is 9 fps in FX mode (but that's only 12 MP, so a lot less data to manage than Canon's current 21 MP FF), but edges up to 11 fps in DX mode (1.5x crop).

Ok, that makes sense and I can see the benefit. But honestly, at least for me, that is pretty far down my list of desires. Better dynamic range, less noise at high ISO, etc.